ATTENTION Patriots / Birthers / Teabaggers / Whomever - If you did get your Revolution, Then What?

[edit on 1/6/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


I sure did write that thread, and I stand behind it. I do not think that special interest lobby firms have any business in our government.

Flogging? No, Horse whipping, maybe.

The OP wanted to know what would happen after the revolution. So I wrote what is a fictitious scenario of what I believe would be most likely if the OP stated people won a violent overthrow of our government.

If those who are truly patriots got their revolution:

1.) They began through individual actions in a non violent manner where they zealously asserted their natural born rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of property.

2.) Jealously guarding their natural rights they openly and peacefully engaged in debate with those who readily mocked their natural rights as nothing more than statutory grants from government.

3.) They understood that those who refused to acknowledge their rights as being inviolable, unalienable and pre-existing any form of government would insist it all be put to a vote. So, they respectfully declined to engage in their childish rants and mystic chants of majority rules and quietly went about their business as free people do.

4.) They smiled at their detractors and nodded intently while listening to all the insistence that they were law breakers and criminals and even terrorists, who did not want peace but instead wanted something more violent and horrific, and then quietly went about their business as free people do.

5.) They accepted the arguments that this was a nation of laws and that we all must obey the law because they understood that even today there stands a law known as the Supreme Law of the Land, and this law would work in their favor when confronted with the long train of abuses and usurpation's while they held their tyrannical neighbors and nay sayer's, to their word.

6.) They registered to vote not because they saw freedom granted them by doing so, but because they understood they would never ever get chosen for jury duty if they did not register to vote. They went to the polls and voted, but before doing so, made sure to speak to those they would cast a ballot for and express their profound belief that they would always act as only free people act, which is to say, the would respectfully disagree with and quietly withdraw support from any action, any statute or legislation any adverse ruling that sought to abrogate or derogate their rights.

6.) When they were finally called for that judicious honor of serving as a member of the jury they dutifully went and did their level best to be placed as a juror in a trial where someone had been charged with a crime and yet no victim was presented. They would listen intently to the arguments made by this alleged criminals prosecutors, and they would listen solemnly to the stern warnings of the judge who insisted that they must act in accordance to the law, and then when the trial was concluded they would go back into the jury room and zealously fight for acquittal, demanding that all jurors act in accordance to the law, and if no harm had been done, no victim shown, then the only justice to serve was acquittal.

7.) When they did their duty as a member of the jury they would go back home and quietly go about the business of living their life, with liberty and in the pursuit of property because all they really wanted was to flourish and prosper.

8.) When they were confronted by law enforcement agents who banged on their doors, demanding entry and access to search their homes, they would respectfully demand a warrant be shown that was issued upon verified oath. If no verified oath be shown they would respectfully explain that this was a crime, an action under color of law, while those who were banging and rummaging unjustly were merely impersonating official rank as they were operating outside of the scope of their proper jurisdiction. When those who were banging and rummaging would draw their guns, they would demurely acquiesce and explain that they were in fear for their lives and for this reason alone would co-operate to the best of their abilities, but were compelled to point out that an obstruction of justice was done, and such an offense is a criminal act and punishable by law.

9.) When drug out of their homes in placed in a cell, they would continue to explain that their right to due process of law was being abrogated and derogated and such offense could only be criminal and no badge, no elected position could protect them from the long arm of the law.

10.) When drug into to court and made to stand before the judge who read aloud the charges brought against them for possession of guns not legislatively approved, for evasion of taxes, with no seeming subject, for fomenting dissent by opening their mouths, and printing their beliefs, for acting contrary to beings who were subject to the whims of the elected and majority rule; they would listen to judges ask them if they understood the charges brought against them, and they would respectfully answer: "No judge, I do not."

11.) They would question and openly challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of legislative acts contrary to their rights, and when the judge demanded they plead they would respectfully decline, explaining that pleading to crimes they did not understand was not in their best interest.

12.) They would respectfully object when those judges plead on their behalf and in their defense while on trial they would continue to openly challenge the subject matter jurisdiction explaining to the jury that they had acted as free people do, and did not cause any other harm, and sought only peace, and to live long and prosper. They would quietly and respectfully face their accusers, never making assertions only question the veracity of dubious claims.

12.) When their trial had concluded, they would patiently wait, knowing the revolution had begun and that moral and just people were acting on juries as peers. When the jury had reached their verdict they would respectfully stand and quietly accept their acquittal while watching the prosecutor pull his hair and pound his chest, while the judge threatened to huff and then puff and blow the house down.

13.) Once those scalawags and scofflaws of the mystical priest like lawyer class had finished sermonizing, they would respectfully nod in gratitude to the juries of their peers, and quietly go home and go about the business of living their life, with liberty and in pursuit of property as free people do.

reply to post by equistar


Hi Equistar,

I completely understand your point of view, and the last thing I want to do is impose anything on anyone. You and I already have understandings. But we have a disagreement.

Where we disagree is I believe if we go the way you describe, the result will be ideological segregation by State.

Like you say each State would have it's flavor but how strong that flavor becomes could be an imposition on me. I like the assurance that where I go, in the US and it's territories, has a basic set of rules, That uniformity for me is the fabric that binds the union. The fiber imposes, but it strengthens the State, and makes the whole greater than the sum of it's parts.

I can understand another person being more or less happy than I am with the thread count of the fiber. My concern is if it gets too thin it could rip.

That's all that divides us, but it's a big thing. Call me paranoid but first ideology, then class, then Religion...

I can't accept it because I consider it a distortion of the Constitution, and a mistake that I'm trying to avoid. It's what I believe. My closest friend is a Libertarian. I think I posted about it here. I thought I was one for a while during the nineties. But I came to realize that the fabric I like is thicker than that of most Libertarians.

I'm not a threat to my libertarian friends. They are self sufficient people, they know I am the same. I'm ideologically a pain it the butt to them, but my contribution to the friendships is dead on. We Sailed together for 10 years.

One day I asked him, two questions, I knew he would answer me honestly. By what percent would you reduce the GOV in your wettest dream, he said. 95%. How much of your income would you put in the charity fund. He smiled and said nothing, because I know others will, and it's optional. That does not offend me and I don't see it as a moral problem. A contribution is optional period.

This won't work, it's human nature to be selfish, the more you have the less you want to give. I believe it would also be impossible to have any foreign relations in this strong State Union except war. I think it would make the Union 50 times weaker. We would lose those wars. Then the fabric would be epoxy, and game over.

My fabric would have less threads than the current fabric a lot less. Same at the State level less personal intrusion, more gun rights where I live, but I have to confess that I don't trust unfettered gun ownership without background and Psychological screening.

I also believe we have to draw the line somewhere on what firepower a Citizen can leverage. How far can one go? SAM? A Howitzer?

Just a few of my issues. Am I 100% sure? No, but enough to be obstinate about it, and like I want to be part of the decision making process.

I hope it can all work out for everyone's sake.
I think this thread was a good try. But people are going to look at it with suspicion as an attempt to bait. It was an attempt to have specifics to consider, and debate.

That's par for the course. I think we will come to terms eventually, or we will be miserable if not irreparably damaged. I have family and dear friends in Texas. I can't go to Texas and feel comfortable. So I don't go, I don't expect Texas to change for me. But I feel the loss. If things change I'll go. I'm sure it's somewhat phobic like someone not going to San Francisco because of Gay people. But I don't blame them for feeling that way.

I don't have the answer, I'm looking for it. I try not to be over the top with the analogies, but I'm not a good writer. I guess I have too much to say, and not enough Grey matter to say it gracefully.

Thank you for the thoughtful and rational response, and for taking the time to read the thread.

Ziggy

reply to post by whatukno


I am trying so had to telepathically give you cancer right now.

reply to post by ziggystrange



You know ziggy i actually agree with some of your points there. Myself, if i could afford it i would give a lot to charity.

If you want to check out a good site login to www.ithp.org.... It is an unbiased user generated news sites. You guys seem like you'd all like it a lot. Give it a try.

Originally posted by DeathShield
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

You know ziggy i actually agree with some of your points there. Myself, if i could afford it i would give a lot to charity.

I don't have a problem with you. Our differences are not all that broad. Anybody who leaves a hate group gets a lot of support from me.

I would legalize pot in a second as well as some other drugs. I'd give coc aine and heroin to addicts free. Full disclosure, many other things that make plain horse sense.

Like you said, no war on drugs, no drug cartels, plenty of taxes to take off people's backs, and less alcoholics. It's cheaper, more humane, and would not create criminals.

Dissent is not new to me, I was a dissenter in my youth, I was smack in the middle of the movements during the Sixties and early Seventies. I saw my share of violence a bunch of times, DC, Syracuse, NY. I know the end of a club first hand, and what it feels like to have 5 goons with shields and body armor beating on you. Pepper gas, Tear gas, got shot, cut, and burned.

I'm for full Gay rights, end of story.

People have more in common than differences.

But we divide on difference rather than unite on commonalities.

Peace

Ziggy

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by endisnighe

 

The OP wanted to know what would happen after the revolution. So I wrote what is a fictitious scenario of what I believe would be most likely if the OP stated people won a violent overthrow of our government.

Whatukno

Endisnighe conveniently ignores the fact that the deception he infers would only have been deceitful if you had actually done it without announcing to the world your intention, and you did not even do it.

He throws stones from glass houses and then protests when you throw them back. Then like clockwork, he does the exact thing he's accusing you of, before and after he accuses you. The guy is an enigma.

He posts a quote form another thread here. Is that even allowed?

Have you gone to his new thread on labels? Easy to find, he's cleverly put the link in his signature.

It's a great thread, I recommend it. It's another spin-off of this topic.

He went to another thread where I posted and put on a song and dance upon realizing I was left of center, and I don't like racists.

He invited me so I dropped by

I'm developing a fan thing for Endisnighe, his threads are great. He's a busy guy. Best thing about debating Endisnighe is he's very generous with material. You will never be at a loss for words.

Thanks for your posts on this thread.

Ziggy

reply to post by DeathShield


And the genocide begins!

Thank you, that is so kind of you. Gosh! See what lovely people are on the Right?



I forgot to add some things.

Trickle down economics on steroids.

Massive taxes for the lower class, scaling down as they move up the economic ladder to zero taxes for the highest wage earners. Because in the Political Right's world, those that make the most obviously are better than those who are poor. So the poor should be punished for being poor and the rich need to be rewarded for being obviously better than everyone else.

No Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Welfare for anyone, because if you can't stand on your own two feet, the only thing you deserve is to starve to death and not be a blight on the Right Wing society.

No minimum wage, because that socialist nonsense must go out the window. You earn what your employer tells you. Sure you might make .14 cents a day, but if you were a better person, you would obviously have a better job and earn more. Sorry grandpa, I know you fought in the war to protect this country, but you weren't smart or hard working enough to deserve a pension, so you get to starve to death in a pile of your own waste because you're too poor to afford medical care in your golden years.

No OSHA, CDC, or any other protection organization because it's not in the constitution. So if your employer tells you to send out that contaminated beef product, because he is better than you are (cause he makes more) you should. And those that get sick and die off that contaminated food obviously weren't good enough people to live anyway. Don't whine about your job being unsafe, it's your fault if you get hurt cause your an idiot.

Ah the lovely right wing world, isn't it grand?

reply to post by whatukno


I am doing my very best to telepathically wish you well and bring harmony between us.

reply to post by ziggystrange


Don't worry bout it, I have pretty thick skin.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Thanks, I hope that cancels out the telepathic cancer that DeathShield wishes on me

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

Don't worry bout it, I have pretty thick skin.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Thanks, I hope that cancels out the telepathic cancer that DeathShield wishes on me

Ohmmmmmmm! I am doing what I can buddy.

i think the only hope is an arm chair revolution........

ive actually figured out the logistics in a plausible modern day revolution..

please let me know.. i am happy to spread this message,, however it first requires interest for true employment of such a thought,,,

so romans lend me your ears, and i will lend u this fantabulous revolutionary idea....

in a nutshell my idea consists of
FIGHTING BIG BROTHER WITH LITTLE BROTHER!!!

SOVEReignty.. sliipping....so fast.. cant stop it...

Originally posted by tripulation666
i think the only hope is an arm chair revolution........

ive actually figured out the logistics in a plausible modern day revolution..

please let me know.. i am happy to spread this message,, however it first requires interest for true employment of such a thought,,,

so romans lend me your ears, and i will lend u this fantabulous revolutionary idea....

in a nutshell my idea consists of
FIGHTING BIG BROTHER WITH LITTLE BROTHER!!!

SOVEReignty.. sliipping....so fast.. cant stop it...

Hi Trip,

Please do tell us. You will find everyone wants to think through anything that could help.

I agree the solution is not violent uprising.

Thanks for posting,

Ziggy

Originally posted by DeathShield
reply to post by whatukno

 

I am trying so had to telepathically give you cancer right now.

Are you aware of the saying.....

"Be careful what you wish for; You might just get it"

but DS what I wish for you is abundant wealth, good health, and Peace and Love to surround you wherever you go in this crazy world. I know we may disagree on alot but ultimately we are brothers reguardless of our particular ideologies.





[edit on 6-1-2010 by whaaa]

reply to post by ziggystrange


Z- Like you say each State would have it's flavor but how strong that flavor becomes could be an imposition on me. I like the assurance that where I go, in the US and it's territories, has a basic set of rules, That uniformity for me is the fabric that binds the union. The fiber imposes, but it strengthens the State, and makes the whole greater than the sum of it's parts.

I can understand another person being more or less happy than I am with the thread count of the fiber. My concern is if it gets too thin it could rip.

That's all that divides us, but it's a big thing. Call me paranoid but first ideology, then class, then Religion...

Me - Take a look at New York City, I have only been there once so maybe I am wrong but you can walk on one block and find all things Chinese then another block all Italian, Latino, etc.. is there not beauty in the fact of celebrating different beliefs? Is it not yin and yang working segregation and unity combined? Can we take that concept and expand it over the whole US?

Z - it's human nature to be selfish, the more you have the less you want to give.
Me - I don't believe this to be true, there are many that once they are established in life and have what they consider the necessities they freely give, like alumni to colleges, donations to hospitals and causes that the person was intimately involved with like working in the church or homeless kitchen because they were in that situtaion for a short time in their youth or like me helping the person in front of me at the grocer who's fumbling for a few dollars so she won't have to take back that extra gallon of milk even if it is my last dollar. But you may be right in some sense because I believe that progressives on the whole have more in hand wealth than conservatives and it is proven that conservatives give more of their time and money to charities than do progressives.

Z - I have family and dear friends in Texas. I can't go to Texas and feel comfortable. So I don't go, I don't expect Texas to change for me. But I feel the loss. If things change I'll go. I'm sure it's somewhat phobic like someone not going to San Francisco because of Gay people. But I don't blame them for feeling that way.
Me - I feel that I can be comfortable in Texas or SF, I'm certain you could go to Austin, Houston or Dallas and not feel discriminated because ofwho you choose as a companion. Communities and/or states that congregate people who thrive on hate will be known and would probably be exacerbated in my world but good b/c then they are isolated, many others will not buy their products or accept their services or frequent their establishments, they will have to voluntarily conform or lose business, friends, stature. The free market would eliminate them due to their narrowmindness.

Z - Am I 100% sure? No, but enough to be obstinate about it, and like I want to be part of the decision making process...I hope it can all work out for everyone's sake...I don't have the answer, I'm looking for it. I try not to be over the top with the analogies, but I'm not a good writer. I guess I have too much to say, and not enough Grey matter to say it gracefully.
Me - My feelings exactly, well said.

Z - Thank you for the thoughtful and rational response, and for taking the time to read the thread.

Me - You're very welcome and thank you for having a civil debate on something that needs to be on the table.

Originally posted by equistar
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

Me - Take a look at New York City, I have only been there once so maybe I am wrong but you can walk on one block and find all things Chinese then another block all Italian, Latino, etc.. is there not beauty in the fact of celebrating different beliefs? Is it not yin and yang working segregation and unity combined? Can we take that concept and expand it over the whole US?

Hello Equistar,

Z - It all sounds reasonable until you say this.

E- Is it not yin and yang working segregation and unity combined? Can we take that concept and expand it over the whole US?

Z - Sounds a lot like separate but equal. But more relevant to the case in point, I am in NYC, and No.

Chinatown, little Italy, Little Odessa, Corona, Williamsburg, Harlem, etc. are not how you characterize the areas you mentioned. These neighborhoods have flavor, but it's for common consumption. People of every Race and National origin populate the melting pot. We are not a perfect example of peaceful coexistence, but we manage, and we like it the way it is.

What evades some, is that we are Americans, and we are not going to slide back to the wisdom of segregation under any name. I like that if I decide to move to Harlem, I may have to be more tolerant, and vigilant, because I'm different but I can count on the law of the land not the neighborhood. I like being Free to choose.

In the U.S. you describe, individual States would have the right to institute, unconstitutional laws designed to give comfort to an engineered majority.This would take away my current right to choose.

Today, if someone objects to my Jewish Wife breathing, I can do something about it. Wherever I happen to be. I may lose my life, and or Wife, but Freedom demands sacrifice, and sometimes death. But the all important law will be on my side.

Options are important in freedom, the Founding Fathers gave us options, and no border check points between States. I consider that mine now.

Yes we have not only the right, but the responsibility to amend the Constitution, but I do not believe what was intended was to give the people the right to create a Segregated United Oppressive State Tyranny.

You ask me to trust that people are inherently benevolent, as a replacement for laws, I choose to keep the laws that limit my freedom to oppress you.

I should trust that we will castigate by economic embargo. No we have laws in place to prevent States from acting outside of the scope of their given powers. Economic embargoes do not belong inside the borders of a United Nation. I prefer to have a Baseball Series against Massachusetts, than a Civil War due to some newly vested perceived power, that can well be distorted.

I'm not paranoid, I'm vigilant and protective of my rights.

It's not that I don't trust that there are good people in every State. It's that I know there are bad ones. History has taught me that right here in the US, we have people that would if capable, re institute Slavery. I have seen proposals for indentured labor as a means to gain Citizenship. I find this idea to be offensive, but that's not the problem, it's illegal period.

At least, that's the way it's supposed to be, according to the Constitution.

I can still say that. I don't believe we have to resort to trading freedom for comfort of the few, or the intolerant. I don't know you, I can't judge the content of your character from your words, it's your actions I can properly appreciate. This is why I have to say no to the ideas you pose.

If you prevail by "lawful" means, I will submit to the Constitution, or Emigrate. I understand the consequences. My Father did this more than once, I know the value of freedom because where he was born, there was none. Now that I have it, it's going to be difficult for someone to take it from me, or like Charlton Heston said from my cold dead fingers.

Again, there is no accusation, only distrust, and vigilance. I had a friend once who was a bigot, see? I can be tolerant. I know many but let's concentrate on Dennis. He hated, as he liked to call them "PRs", when I wasn't around, (he knew me) Dennis was one nasty little devil, he loved to call people names, start fights, let them know he did not like them and were not welcome.

One day I was surprised to find Dennis in Spanish Harlem, he was at a "Cuchifrito" Restaurant gorging himself on PR goodies. I said WTF are "you" doing here? He said, hoping nobody I know sees me, and gave me a little smile. "I swear"

Dennis would create a US that was divided by color, and National origin.
He then would treat "X's" any way he pleased in his protected area. But the next day he'd be at their Restaurant munching, and trying to do the chicks.
But this would not be allowed in his area. I'm not saying X's are better than whites, just better than Dennis. I'd rather see the X's happy than Dennis, any day. Does Dennis represent me? absolutely not. I take precedence over Dennis because he is a Constitutional scofflaw. Dennis has demonstrated that he can't be trusted not to step on others rights. It's only the law that prevents him from increasing the scope of his bigotry.

You and I pay a price for his bigotry. Let's get rid of his ideology, and then we can start to talk about trust in place of laws. Until then, I have to keep on trusting the instruments that work. The Constitution, The Pen, and unfortunately, The Sword. The Founders were a lot like me, 2nd 3rd gen immigrants. I believe I understand what they wanted to accomplish.

We're not there, but we can get there if we don't allow fear, and extreme thinking to derail us.

I believe the Nation described by States Rights proponents, has numerous fatal flaws, I'd like someone to properly explain how we would have an a adequate military force, and domestic tranquility in this new US.

Militarized borders, little or no immigration, every state for itself is not a Union. Strongman States are toppled by the first high wind.

What about the rest of the world. How do we become Merlin, and cast a spell over them? I'm no Imperialist, but we need a presence overseas to survive today. Our enemies would destroy a Rubik cubed Jello version of America.

For what? Intolerance? Fear? Segregation? Comfort? I have to say no.

1 President or 50?
No brainer, just 1.

Thank you for your civil discourse.

Ziggy.



[edit on 6-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

I am against a revolt because I know the outcome like most of you do too; the UN coming in with Interpol and (trying to) taking ALL of our rights away and then we'd be back in the same place as before. I even would go so far as to say that this scenario will probably happen regardless.

However, having said that, I don't have a problem with how this nation is SUPPOSE to be ran, I have a problem with what has made this nation AND much of Europe be ran into the ground. 120 peoples pocket books are stuffed by the returns on fear mongering and keeping you in line buying merchandise and products and staying home watching the MSM. I will ask this to just see what you guys think; How many of you're rights are you willing to ALLOW to be taken from you before you punch someone in the face to remind them what you stand for and what you represent? I am not a politician, but I am f**king American [decended from Celtic blood and the House of Dan] and a damn proud one at that. MONEY runs the nation and if you start f**king the supply of money up, you start messing with people where they feel it and everyone in the world can watch them feel it.

Your thoughts?

Originally posted by Xterrain

I am against a revolt because I know the outcome like most of you do too; the UN coming in with Interpol and (trying to) taking ALL of our rights away and then we'd be back in the same place as before. I even would go so far as to say that this scenario will probably happen regardless.

However, having said that, I don't have a problem with how this nation is SUPPOSE to be ran, I have a problem with what has made this nation AND much of Europe be ran into the ground. 120 peoples pocket books are stuffed by the returns on fear mongering and keeping you in line buying merchandise and products and staying home watching the MSM. I will ask this to just see what you guys think; How many of you're rights are you willing to ALLOW to be taken from you before you punch someone in the face to remind them what you stand for and what you represent? I am not a politician, but I am f**king American [decended from Celtic blood and the House of Dan] and a damn proud one at that. MONEY runs the nation and if you start f**king the supply of money up, you start messing with people where they feel it and everyone in the world can watch them feel it.

Your thoughts?

Welcome Xterrain and Thanks for posting.

I have some Celtic blood too, Phagin, and O'rourke clans. I agree with pretty much everything you say.

If you read this long thread and think about all the things that are proposed you'll see who really wants to take your money, and tell you what to do, and where you can go, or live.

Peace,

Ziggy